Editor's Guidelines

This document carefully drafted to meet the specific needs of the Tereni /Terrains/ and is based on the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the recommendations of the Council of Scientific Editors and ALLEA /All European Academies/. It is in compliance with the requirements of the University of St. Kliment Ohridski. The aim is to ensure integrity, transparency and accountability and to guarantee the credibility of scientific publishing. These guidelines address risk areas such as authorship, data sharing, conflicts of interest and dealing with misconduct, and cover the entire publication lifecycle.

With a central role in the publication process, the Editorial Board recognizes the ethical responsibilities of all individuals involved in the publication process. Consequently, the Editorial Board is committed to promoting these guidelines among all those involved in the creation and publication of scholarly works in Tereni. These guidelines should be followed by editors, reviewers, and authors as part of a collective effort to provide objective and valuable information to all interested parties

Editors are responsible for maintaining the integrity and quality of the scientific publishing process. The members of the Editorial Board of Tereni are listed on this website, along with their institutional email addresses, ORCIDs and other links. It is their ethical obligation to organize transparent and fair evaluation of manuscripts, to ensure anonymity of authors and reviewers. They must collectively and individually uphold the reputation of Tereni. This includes, but is not limited to, appropriate handling of conflicts of interest and fair oversight of the entire publication process.

One of the basic principles of the responsibility of editors is to maintain independence in decision-making. Editors should base their decisions on the scientific merit of the manuscript, the validity of the data, and the significance of the study results, without being influenced by external factors. Transparency of the editorial process is a sine qua non of editorial ethics. Personal bias, commercial interests and pressure from affiliated organisations should not influence editorial decisions. Any concerns about undue influence should be raised with the Editor-in-Chief. In the event of a breach of the journal's ethical principles , the Editorial Board may decide to terminate the Editor's participation on the Editorial Board.

For example, editorial independence requires editors to avoid accepting manuscripts where they have a personal relationship with the authors or have a vested interest in the outcome of the research, i.e. avoid conflicts of interest (see section below for more information). If an editor has collaborated with the author in writing a manuscript, is directly related to the author, or has a financial interest in the research, they should decline to work on the manuscript. In such cases, the manuscript should be reassigned to an unbiased colleague to ensure that the review process is unbiased.

Editors, including the Editor-in-Chief who performs the initial evaluation of all manuscripts, are careful to ensure that submitted manuscripts and reviews adhere to ethical principles during the editorial process. This includes ensuring that all research meets established ethical standards and regulations. Manuscripts that do not meet these ethical requirements will be returned to the authors for clarification or, in the case of a serious breach of ethical standards, rejected.

Research misconduct, including plagiarism, fabrication and falsification, is a serious threat to the credibility of the scientific literature. Editors should investigate thoroughly and impartially all allegations of misconduct. When an allegation of misconduct is made, the editor should first gather all relevant information and review the evidence provided by the complainant. The case is reviewed at a meeting of the Editorial Board, which considers the next step. The steps vary depending on the author and his institutional affiliation.

In the initial stage after receiving a manuscript for publication, editors use plagiarism detection tools (StrikePlagiarism) to check the originality of the submitted manuscript. If an accusation of plagiarism is made after publication, the article should be checked again using a plagiarism detection tool. In the case of confirmed plagiarism, data manipulation or fabrication, editors should consult independent experts in the relevant field to assess the validity of the concerns. If misconduct is proven, the manuscript should be retracted and the reasons for retraction should be clearly stated in a public communication.

To protect the confidentiality of the editorial process, it is essential to ensure the anonymity and integrity of the double-blind review process, as well as the protection of sensitive information pertaining to the manuscript and the research associated with it. Ensuring these is the responsibility of the editors.

Editors should not disclose details of manuscripts, including content, authorship, or stage in the review process, to anyone outside the Editorial Board and the reviewers involved in the evaluation. Editors should also refrain from using unpublished data or ideas obtained during the review process for their own research purposes, as this is a serious ethical violation. Confidentiality extends to all communications with reviewers and authors and editors must ensure that sensitive information is protected at all stages.

When elected to the Editorial Board, the Editor is required to declare any conflicts of interest he or she may have, including if serving on the Editorial Board of another journal, as these may influence his or her editorial decisions. When assigning a task to an editor, the Editor-in-Chief must take this disclosure into account to avoid conflicts of interest. If an editor is assigned a manuscript that may have a direct or indirect bearing on the editor's objectivity, it is imperative that the editor disclose this to the Editor-in-Chief immediately. Common examples include a close personal relationship with the author or competing research interests in the same field.

To effectively manage conflicts of interest, editors must recuse themselves from decision-making when such conflicts arise. The manuscript should be reassigned to another editor without conflicts of interest to ensure that the review process remains unbiased.

The journal's policy on conflict of interest cases is based on the Regulations on the Structure and Activities of Sofia University.

Authors may submit complaints about bias, procedural errors, or unfair treatment during the peer review process to the Editorial Board, represented by the Editor-in-Chief. Editors are required to consider these complaints objectively, provide a clear response and, if necessary, offer the possibility of appeal. The appeal process involves re-evaluation of the manuscript with other, independent reviewers to ensure a fair review.

Editorial responsibility requires editors to be open and consistent throughout the decision-making process. Feedback to authors must be constructive and based on objective criteria focused on the scientific quality and significance of the work. Editors should avoid making arbitrary decisions and should be prepared to justify their decisions if challenged by authors or outsiders.

Post-publication management is essential to maintain the scientific integrity of the journal content. With the inclusion of the Crossmark logo, the Editorial Board of Tereni declares its commitment to maintain the content it publishes and to inform readers of any changes in a timely manner. Editors should promptly address errors or resolve ethical issues that arise after publication. Minor omissions such as typographical errors or inaccuracies in author information (name, ORCID, email, institution) may require a correction notice, while significant ethical violations such as plagiarism or falsification of data may require formal retraction of the publication.

The final decision to make corrections or to withdraw must be taken in accordance with the opinion of the Editorial Board.

Editors may issue a retraction notice that clearly states the reasons for the retraction and includes information about the original article that will be available on the Crossmark Rules website. This ensures transparency and helps readers understand the circumstances of the issue. In addition, the Editorial Board supports constructive post-publication discussions, encouraging the academic community to discuss the paper or provide feedback. Letters to the Editorial Board are necessarily accepted and encouraged by all members of the College.